Defendant or a company in which he has interest. He relied on the case of DELE FAGORIOLA V FRN, (2013) LPELR 20896 (SC). Counsel submitted on behalf of the 1st Defendant that the prosecution failed to lead cogent evidence to prove that the 1st Defendant was a land officer. Learned Counsel submitted that the 1st Defendant in proof of his assertion that he was never a land officer at Abuja Municipal Area Council tendered his letter of appointment into the Civil Service of the Federation, Exhibit 16, to establish the fact that he was an Administrative Officer and never a land officer. On the second ingredient, learned Counsel submitted that the 1st Defendant not being a land officer as at 2000, it was not practicable for him to have acted in the capacity of that office, used that office to confer unfair advantage on a company belonging to himself. On the third ingredient, he submitted that the prosecution failed to lead evidence on how or method used by the 1st Defendant to cause title documents of Plot SS1 Jikwoyi Extension III to be issued to a company belonging to himself. And finally, learned Counsel stated that the prosecution in an attempt to link the 1st Defendant and Pax Education Resources. According to learned Counsel when PW3 was confronted with exhibits 9 and 10, he was unable to show that the 1st Defendant was either a shareholder or a director in any of the two entities. Hence, learned Counsel submitted that the totality of the prosecution’s evidence against the 1st Defendant on the commission of the offence charged was based on suspicion as there was neither direct or circumstantial evidence linking him to the offence charged. He submitted that suspicion no matter how strong does not take the place of evidence to warrant a conviction. He relied on the case of KAYODE IDOWU V THE STATE, (1998) 11 NWLR (pt 574) page 354 at 370 para D. The learned Counsel then referred me to the testimonies of DWs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 and submitted to the effect that the testimonies of the witnesses is consistent with the 1st Defendant’s innocence and could be true and is not proved to 22